ETHICAL DECISIONS ON STUDENT PRIVACY AND AI
Ethical Decisions on Student Privacy and AI in Education
WGU D842: Ethics in Technology
CON1 Task 1
Western Governors University
A. Ethical Situation Description
A mid-sized urban public school district has recently partnered with an educational
technology company to deploy an AI-powered learning platform across its K-12 schools. The
platform collects detailed behavioral and academic data on students, including keystroke patterns,
time-on-task metrics, quiz scores, reading speed, and even inferred emotional states derived from
students’ interactions with the system. The vendor uses this data to personalize learning paths and
generate predictive analytics about student performance and college readiness.
The district’s IT director discovers that the vendor’s terms of service allow it to share “de-
identified” student data with third-party advertisers and research institutions. District
administrators were not fully aware of this clause when signing the contract. Parents were never
explicitly informed that their children’s behavioral and inferred emotional data could be shared
with external parties, nor were they offered a meaningful opportunity to opt out. The school’s
existing privacy notices are written in dense legal language that few parents can parse.
1
, ETHICAL DECISIONS ON STUDENT PRIVACY AND AI
The district’s technology committee is now faced with an ethical decision: should it
continue using the platform as-is, renegotiate the contract to restrict data sharing, notify parents
and allow opt-outs, or terminate the contract entirely? Each option carries trade-offs involving
student welfare, educational quality, institutional trust, legal compliance, and financial cost. This
situation is ethically complex because it pits the potential academic benefits of AI-driven
personalization against fundamental issues of student privacy, informed consent, and the
commodification of minors’ data.
B. Stakeholders
The primary stakeholders in this ethical situation are the students, parents, school district
administrators, teachers, and the AI technology vendor.
Students are the most directly affected stakeholders. They are minors who cannot
meaningfully consent to data collection and whose behavioral, academic, and inferred emotional
profiles are being aggregated and potentially shared. Their immediate interests include receiving
a quality, personalized education, but their long-term interests include protection of their privacy,
control over their personal data, and freedom from the potential harms of data misuse such as
algorithmic profiling, discrimination, or data breaches.
Parents and guardians have a legal and moral right to be informed about how their
children’s data is used. Under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the
Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), parents hold significant rights over student
data. Their interests include transparency, informed consent, and the ability to make autonomous
decisions about their children’s digital footprints. In this situation, parents have been functionally
excluded from the decision-making process.
School district administrators and the technology committee are the institutional decision-
makers. They bear responsibility for contractual oversight, regulatory compliance, and the welfare
of students and staff. Their interests include improving academic outcomes, managing limited
budgets, maintaining public trust, and avoiding legal liability. The discovery of the data-sharing
clause puts them in a position of institutional accountability.
Teachers rely on the platform for instructional support, differentiated learning tools, and
student performance data. Their interests include pedagogical effectiveness and ease of workflow,
but they also have a professional duty of care toward their students’ wellbeing. Teachers may be
unaware of the extent of the data collection occurring through the tools they use daily.
The technology vendor has a commercial interest in retaining the district as a client and
maximizing the value of the data it collects. While the vendor may claim that data sharing advances
educational research, its profit motive creates a structural conflict of interest. The vendor is
responsible for transparency in its data practices and for ensuring that its technology does not
exploit vulnerable users.
C. Ethical Theory Analysis – Utilitarianism
2
Ethical Decisions on Student Privacy and AI in Education
WGU D842: Ethics in Technology
CON1 Task 1
Western Governors University
A. Ethical Situation Description
A mid-sized urban public school district has recently partnered with an educational
technology company to deploy an AI-powered learning platform across its K-12 schools. The
platform collects detailed behavioral and academic data on students, including keystroke patterns,
time-on-task metrics, quiz scores, reading speed, and even inferred emotional states derived from
students’ interactions with the system. The vendor uses this data to personalize learning paths and
generate predictive analytics about student performance and college readiness.
The district’s IT director discovers that the vendor’s terms of service allow it to share “de-
identified” student data with third-party advertisers and research institutions. District
administrators were not fully aware of this clause when signing the contract. Parents were never
explicitly informed that their children’s behavioral and inferred emotional data could be shared
with external parties, nor were they offered a meaningful opportunity to opt out. The school’s
existing privacy notices are written in dense legal language that few parents can parse.
1
, ETHICAL DECISIONS ON STUDENT PRIVACY AND AI
The district’s technology committee is now faced with an ethical decision: should it
continue using the platform as-is, renegotiate the contract to restrict data sharing, notify parents
and allow opt-outs, or terminate the contract entirely? Each option carries trade-offs involving
student welfare, educational quality, institutional trust, legal compliance, and financial cost. This
situation is ethically complex because it pits the potential academic benefits of AI-driven
personalization against fundamental issues of student privacy, informed consent, and the
commodification of minors’ data.
B. Stakeholders
The primary stakeholders in this ethical situation are the students, parents, school district
administrators, teachers, and the AI technology vendor.
Students are the most directly affected stakeholders. They are minors who cannot
meaningfully consent to data collection and whose behavioral, academic, and inferred emotional
profiles are being aggregated and potentially shared. Their immediate interests include receiving
a quality, personalized education, but their long-term interests include protection of their privacy,
control over their personal data, and freedom from the potential harms of data misuse such as
algorithmic profiling, discrimination, or data breaches.
Parents and guardians have a legal and moral right to be informed about how their
children’s data is used. Under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the
Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), parents hold significant rights over student
data. Their interests include transparency, informed consent, and the ability to make autonomous
decisions about their children’s digital footprints. In this situation, parents have been functionally
excluded from the decision-making process.
School district administrators and the technology committee are the institutional decision-
makers. They bear responsibility for contractual oversight, regulatory compliance, and the welfare
of students and staff. Their interests include improving academic outcomes, managing limited
budgets, maintaining public trust, and avoiding legal liability. The discovery of the data-sharing
clause puts them in a position of institutional accountability.
Teachers rely on the platform for instructional support, differentiated learning tools, and
student performance data. Their interests include pedagogical effectiveness and ease of workflow,
but they also have a professional duty of care toward their students’ wellbeing. Teachers may be
unaware of the extent of the data collection occurring through the tools they use daily.
The technology vendor has a commercial interest in retaining the district as a client and
maximizing the value of the data it collects. While the vendor may claim that data sharing advances
educational research, its profit motive creates a structural conflict of interest. The vendor is
responsible for transparency in its data practices and for ensuring that its technology does not
exploit vulnerable users.
C. Ethical Theory Analysis – Utilitarianism
2
